Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Can Vancouver hold it's own against SF, Philly, Boston and Montreal for urbanity?
Yes 21 42.86%
Sort of - mixed opinions - not sure 8 16.33%
No 20 40.82%
Voters: 49. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-05-2013, 11:09 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles
5,864 posts, read 15,239,602 times
Reputation: 6767

Advertisements

Can Vancouver hold its own when compared to:

Montreal
San Francisco
Boston
Philadelphia

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-05-2013, 11:11 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
45,983 posts, read 53,458,335 times
Reputation: 15184
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwright1 View Post
City to city at nearly 14,000 ppsm, that has to count for something. Why even count suburbs and places like the inland empire when we're talking about urban and cities. So far everything I read says #1 in Canada in ppsm. It might not be as old but to me feels just as dense and urban as most.
City limits are a poor comparison as some cities contains a much larger portion of their metro than others. Have you spent time in Boston or Philly? While Vancouver's downtown might feel as busy as those, IMO there's a sharper drop off leaving the center.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2013, 03:06 PM
 
1,669 posts, read 4,240,543 times
Reputation: 978
No, Vancouver is not as urban as those cities, it's one level below them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2013, 03:22 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,384 posts, read 28,505,679 times
Reputation: 5884
no, at street level it doesn't feel like it, and the skyline looks way better in pictures. They are actually mostly low to mid rises and many look very similar. To me it's more like Portland with a skyline. Basically a bunch of their residential is crammed in high rises. In no way does it feel bustling as somewhere like SF which is the focal point of an 8+million people metro.

I can show this in pictures when you go aerial

http://www.willgoto.com/images/Size3...eebe642310.jpg

look at the high rises, now look at all the space in between them, look at the multilane highways between them.. that kills the "urbanity" and bustling. Vancouver uses some weird development planning, for sure.

Now look at SF...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ks_dusk_MC.jpg

notice the almost no wasted space anywhere.

Last edited by JMT; 07-05-2013 at 07:45 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2013, 03:36 PM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
456 posts, read 774,153 times
Reputation: 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
no, at street level it doesn't feel like it, and the skyline looks way better in pictures. They are actually mostly low to mid rises and many look very similar. To me it's more like Portland with a skyline. Basically a bunch of their residential is crammed in high rises. In no way does it feel bustling as somewhere like SF which is the focal point of an 8+million people metro.

I can show this in pictures when you go aerial



look at the high rises, now look at all the space in between them, look at the multilane highways between them.. that kills the "urbanity" and bustling. Vancouver uses some weird development planning, for sure.

Now look at SF...



notice the almost no wasted space anywhere.
That's kind of funny to complain about multi-lane highways when all Vancouver has are a couple of multi-block viaducts. SF has way more highway infrastructure within it still even after tearing down several sections.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2013, 03:44 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,384 posts, read 28,505,679 times
Reputation: 5884
Quote:
Originally Posted by benleis View Post
That's kind of funny to complain about multi-lane highways when all Vancouver has are a couple of multi-block viaducts. SF has way more highway infrastructure within it still even after tearing down several sections.
I'm complaining also about the space. SF does not have it within it so much, it mostly goes around it, and it is more b/c there are way more people coming into SF in the daytime. SF is way denser street level than Vancouver, anybody who can't see this needs to get their eyes checked next time they go there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2013, 03:44 PM
 
364 posts, read 619,013 times
Reputation: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by benleis View Post
That's kind of funny to complain about multi-lane highways when all Vancouver has are a couple of multi-block viaducts. SF has way more highway infrastructure within it still even after tearing down several sections.
I have been to Montreal, Philly, Boston and SF but never to Vancouver. This is why I started the thread was to get a feel for its size.

I can honestly say after seeing those pictures that grapico made a great point. The buildings have huge spaces between them in aerials.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2013, 03:45 PM
 
Location: PNW
2,011 posts, read 3,459,220 times
Reputation: 1403
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
No, it's not the highest in Canada or the others. For Canada, it's #3, see the graph:

https://www.city-data.com/forum/22279323-post23.html
I think that Data is incorrect. There have San Diego's density at 7000 when it actually is only 4000. Don't know where those numbers came from.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2013, 03:48 PM
 
364 posts, read 619,013 times
Reputation: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by DevanXL View Post
I think that Data is incorrect. There have San Diego's density at 7000 when it actually is only 4000. Don't know where those numbers came from.
This thread is about how Vancouver compares to Montreal, Boston, Philly and SF in terms of urbanity.

If the two of you want to discuss Toronto or SD please start your own thread. Thanks
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2013, 03:52 PM
 
1,669 posts, read 4,240,543 times
Reputation: 978
^^ DevanXL, That graph is showing the weighted density of the selected metro areas. The data used is from the 2000 census for the American metros and the 2006 census for the Canadian metros, so there would be some changes in the rankings when more current data is used. For example, I believe Toronto has moved up in the rankings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top